Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Alarmists still gloat over death of Sceptics.

John L. Daly (31 March 1943 – 29 January 2004) was an Australian teacher and self-declared "Greenhouse skeptic." He was known for speaking out publicly against what he called the "Global Warming scare," and authored the book The greenhouse trap: Why the greenhouse effect will not end life on earth, published in 1989 by Bantam Books.

Looking at his scientific work today gives an insight into why the people at the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were so annoyed with Daly’s work and why he was such a thorn in the side of their climate theories and research.

Daly was a pioneer in the questioning of global warming theory when the rest of the world was taking little interest in the issue. In the year the IPCC was formed under the shelter of the UN (1988), and a year before Margaret Thatcher gave the IPCC her blessing, Daly was writing a scathing book on what he called the myths and politics of the Co2 scare campaign. (Quadrant - John L Daly by John Izzard)

And another to use a fraudulent identity was Peter Gleick, who wrote of the Integrity of Science.With great LACK of INTEGRITY, Gleick posed as a member of Heartland Institute and then disseminated false "Heartland" documents. An amazing lack of integrity.

Despite his full public admission to be a co-conspirator in criminal activities against theHeartland Institute, a charity sympathetic to skeptics, Wikipedia is at pains to hide the fact Peter Gleick yesterday admitted to this felony published here at theHuffington Post.

Wikipedia, the “free online encyclopedia,” has set about swiftly whitewashing the self-confessed criminal conduct of climatologist, Dr. Peter Gleick. Skeptics will regard such action as further evidence that the website is an organ of man-made global warming propaganda.

This amazing example of "Scientific Integrity," Peter Gleick is at it again.

Knowing Coleman, I’m sure he would have been delighted by this response from people whose good opinion he valued so little.

What he would have especially relished, I suspect, is the arrogance and pomposity and self-delusion of Peter Gleick’s claim to be on the #Science side of the argument.

That same arrogance, pomposity and self-delusion is evident in this similarly gloating obituary of Coleman in New Republic by one Emily Atkin.

He had a six-decade broadcasting career, including a stint as the first weather forecaster on ABC’s Good Morning America, but late in life became known for his crusade against the truth about global warming.

“His crusade against the truth about global warming”. Say what? Saucer of milk for Ms Atkin!

Later in the article, Emily gets her kitty claws out on Coleman’s lack of scientific credentials:

Coleman was a television meteorologist, not a climatologist; he didn’t even hold a degree in meteorology. But conservative publications began to cite him as if he were an authority on climate science.

What? You mean a bit like the way liberals worship the climate science authority of Bill Nye, the ‘degree in Mechanical Engineering’ guy?

Gloat they might! But John Daly was right back in 2004, John Coleman was right during his continuing campaign against the fraud of AGW.

When the late great Bob Carter died, true science denier, Alarmist Graham Readfearn could not find "good stuff" but used the perjotative "Denialist":

Now, it is generally expected that after a person dies, you only stick to writing about the good stuff. Others argue that failing to point out criticisms ignores those indirectly impacted and could help myths to embed themselves.

Take, for example, the way Fairfax and The Australian have broken the news of Carter’s death to its readers.

Both stories state as a matter of fact that Carter was fired from his unpaid adjunct professor role at James Cook University because of his views on climate change.

A University that only is open to one side of a scientific debate is not a true source of learning and an unlearned buffoon like Readfearn calling a scientist - a denier - shows his emptiness.

Meanwhile, despite what the despicables are saying, the one death that SHOULD be gloated over, is the death of the falsified AGW hypothesis, the death finally of the greatest fraud inflicted on mankind,

Popular Posts

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans, therefore alarmism and all the money spent on it has no basis. Anthony Cox This is a key issue: whether humans are responsible for all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If they are not then it does not matter if alarmists believe that CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, which it is not because the increase is natural. Human CO2 is a very small % of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, The % of human CO2 going into the atmosphere is shown by Figure 7.3, AR4, 3.67% (218.2 GT divided by 8 GT): Figure 7.3 AR4: Of the total CO2 emissions 98.5% are reabsorbed: EIA, Table 3 2004: The reabsorption of CO2 does not distinguish between human and natural CO2, so the human contribution to the increase is 3.67% of 1.5%. This amount, the human contribution has not changed in 150 years. The human contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is called the airborne fraction. The AF has not changed: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/k…

Opinion by Anthony Cox
I wrote before about the ABC’s bias and the real
cost of the ABC to the Australian community. Since then the Abbott
government has announced reasonable budget cuts but the ABC has sunk further
into its betrayal of its Charter and of the Australian community.
In a recent poll about the farcical China/US deal about
emissions the ABC’s The Drum initially showed this result: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result? No 55% Yes 44% Unsure 1%

15205 votes counted
Given the ABC’s Left/Green readership a remarkable result.
However shortly the result
was changed to this: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change
policies as a result?Yes 76% No 23% Unsure 1% 6001
votes counted
How could you trust an organisation which lies like that and
distorts public …